At 11:01 PM 10/1/00 +0200, Jean-Louis Leroy wrote:
>Personally I'm very concerned about the 'every RFC should have an
>implementation section' near-requirement.
This, I'll agree, is going over the top. It's a good requirement, since it
means people *must* think hard about how a feature will be built, and will
tend to keep the more bizarre things from getting out. Unfortunately it
does stop people that aren't thinking at an internals level, and that's bad.
On the whole I think I'd rather that this requirement not been put in place.
> Or the 'if you're not coding
>the internals your input is most likely bullshit' stance of some of
>our self-appointed 'leaders'.
I've been out of the -language loop for a while, but I can't really picture
any of the folks with any sort of responsibility saying this (do please
correct me if I'm wrong), and anyone else should be granted the respect
appropriate for any "self-appointed leader", which is to say as much as any
other member of the community.
It's possible you're speaking of one or more of the working group chairs,
in which case your criticism may well be valid. This, though, is one of the
cases where you may need to cope (as a volunteer project one needs to work
with what's available). You can also speak to folks a step or two up the
ladder, such as it is--Kirrily's a sane and sensible person to deal with
for any of the -language sub-groups, and if she's not, then Nat *certainly*
is. And complaints about me can always go to him too.
Honestly it looks like a good part of the problem we're having is that
people are treating things that aren't particularly important to be far
more important than they really are.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
